This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Because amendments propose actions and no action is automatically constitutional. Likewsie, any new amendment cannnot void right from existing amendments. If a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

I am surprised that you have difficulty with the concept.

Well then hold onto your seat because, for someone who is obviously intelligent, you just posted what looks like a bunch of gobbledy-gook to me.

I have no idea what that means or even what you're referring to. Amendments make law. The may prohibit actions, or they may compel action or both. But regardless, even if you were right I still have no idea of what the relevance is to what I said. The fact remains that amendments passed according to constitutional requirements are constitutional.
i
SCOTUS gets to make decisions concerning how a law is implemented and what it means, but it doesn't get to say that a constitutional amendment is not constitutional.

If a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

Yes, SCOTUS gets to review laws, including amendments, to determine meaning etc, but it makes no sense to say they get to decide if parts of the constitution are constitutional or not.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I don't have any issue with any investigation.

Originally Posted by jaeger19

the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Do you have a source? I dont think SCOTUS is under any obligation to accept any particular new amendment to the constitution. Rather, they can decide whether the amendment is in and of itself, constitutional.

Any thing in the Constitution is going to be constitutional, unless it was put in there unconstitutionally. So long as it went through the legal method to be ratified, it is constitutional.
"Amendment" means a change to a document or making something "better".

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt